Saturday, July 22, 2006

Has anyone notice all the media coverage lately on the Duke case? No? Gee willikers! It’s everywhere! Oh wait, that was when every freaking MSM outlet was sure they did it, regardless of the evidence. They based their opinions, yes OPINIONS upon typical feminist logic (now ain’t that oxymoronic). They did it, pure and simple. Women don’t lie, especially about rape. Women are above reproach when it comes to these things, donchaknow!

Three rich white boys. Three privileged boys. These are just some of the labels the media has placed upon three young men that have apparently done nothing wrong other than being well off, white, and male. Yep, in other words, they are the epitome of the evil empire called “The Patriarchy ™”.

It is truly ironic to see the media just up and leave the story. No sound bites. No “breaking news” on the case. Nothing. Now why would that be, one would wonder. Why is it that the media has now all but forgotten about the case? Why, after all the constant barrage of “exclusive” tasty morsels has the media somehow forgotten that there are still three young men out there that are being railroaded for a crime they did not commit?

I will give props to a few outlets, such as Newsweek for example. In a recent article, Newsweek came out and stated that initially the story was a clear case of rape/racism. Yet, now that the facts (gosh golly! Facts! Imagine that!), have shed some light on the case, the accuser “may” be lying. OK. So I give them very small props. They still wont state her name, and they most certainly wont come right out and say that this is a clear case of FALSE ACCCUSATIONS. Why would they?

From their recent article; Asked for an interview last week by NEWSWEEK, Nifong declined, but sent an angry e-mail accusing the national media of getting spun by defense lawyers and sticking to his earlier comments to the press. "None of the 'facts' I know at this time, indeed, none of the evidence I have seen from any source, has changed the opinion that I expressed initially," he wrote. He lashed out at "media speculation" (adding, "and it is even worse on the blogs"). He said that he was bound by ethics rules against commenting any more about the case or evidence.

Now if that isn’t the most ridiculous statement ever made by this dolt. Truth be known, the asshat (Gonzo ™) made over 70, that’s SEVENTY, SEVEN ZERO, statements to the press during the initial weeks of the case. Why? Well, unless you have been living under a rock these past few months, you know the reason. You see, Mr. Justice was running for re-election as District Attorney coincidently. He needed votes. He had to show the overall BLACK population that he was strict on crime, even if it was “them thar Duke boys”.

Ethics? What are they? Because I am most certain that Nifong has no fucking clue what they are. He is intentionally pushing the case out beyond his re-election, sometime in the spring of 2007. Why? Again, it’s just simply logic. He knows, and knew from the start he had no case. He knew right from the beginning that if he didn’t tow the typical feminist and the race card, he would not be re-elected, plain and simple.

If he were to do what a DA with ethical values were to do (not even sure there is one but..) he would have continued with his press conferences as the facts came to light. Eventually coming to the conclusion that the charges must be dropped because of lack of evidence. This would have shown to the general public that he did his job.

Nope. Can’t do that. Instead, he is shut tighter than a clam out of water. He won’t say a damned thing about the case. Oh, wait, with one exception. He will state that the media is going too far speculating and judging the case; or to condemn the defense attorneys for the accused for leaking information about the case to the press. Sorry, that’s technically two exceptions.

Uhm, news fucking flash there pally! It’s called “damage control” in the legal world. They essentially have three young men convicted by proxy (white, rich, & male) BECAUSE of statements that YOU’VE made to the media. You fed the media, and the media fed the world. They are guilty in the eyes of a good portion of the population because YOU tried and convicted then in the media. The defense is now doing your fucking job. They are releasing, not leaking jackass, the information to the media to DISPROVE some of the assumptions and conclusions that have been made because of things that YOU’VE said. Anyhow, here we are. The Duke boys (and I affectionately call them), are still in a pickle. Sure they are not really in the spotlight as much, but the pickle still exists. Meanwhile, Crystal Gail Magnum still has the wonder-cloak of anonymity.

In closing this part of my article, I wanted to take a moment to explain something. I am not sure if you all have noticed, but I tend to NOT use their names. It is my little way of showing the MSM that I do not prescribe to their “choice” of splashing the accused all over the place and never ever, ever publishing the picture or even stating the name of the accuser. To protect them, donchaknow. And it IS a choice. Well, my “choice” is that if they are named, so should Crystal Gail Magnum.There is NO law stating that they cannot publish said information. For all you femikooks out there, let me give you a bit of fact. Rape shield laws state that a woman’s previous activities. Specifically SEXUAL, cannot be brought up during a rape trial. That is essentially it. Nowhere in that pathetic excuse of a law does it say, you will not divulge the identity of the woman. Nowhere! So get that “rose-colored glasses definition” out of your fucking heads.

0 Comments:

Links to this post:

FAIR USE NOTICE: This web log contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding and increase awareness of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family breakdown, equality, gender bias, etc.
We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the
material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.